Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs

2018, Volume 2, Number 2, pages 12–23

Urban Growth, Liveability and Quality Urban Design:

Questions about the efficacy of urban planning

systems in Auckland, New Zealand *Dr.LEE BEATTIE1, Dr.ERROL HAARHOFF2

1 &2 School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

E mail: l.beattie@auckland.ac.nz , E mail: e.haarhoff@auckland.ac.nz

A B S T R A C T

Preventing sprawl and concentrating future urban growth at transit centres, typifies

many urban planning strategies in a number of Australian, New Zealand and North

America cities. Newer iterations of these strategies also argue that compact

development delivers public benefits by enhancing urban ‘liveability’ through good

urban design outcomes. Where neoliberal economic conditions prevail, achieving

these aims is largely dependent on market-driven development actions requiring the

appropriate urban planning responses to ensure these outcomes. However, there

are growing concerns that urban planning approaches currently used are not

effectively delivering the quality urban design outcomes expected and enhancing

residents’ liveability. This paper reports on an evaluation of three medium density

housing developments located in areas designated for intensification in Auckland,

New Zealand. Examined is the extent to which the development outcomes are

aligned with the statutory urban planning requirements for quality urban design.

The results indicated contradictions and points to limitations of the statutory

planning system to positively influence quality outcomes, leading to enhanced

residents’ experiences.

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 12-23.

https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3667

www.ijcua.com

Copyright © 2017 Journal Of Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Among others, an important goal of urban

planning is directing future development

towards outcomes that will deliver enhanced

social, environmental, cultural and economic

benefits. A number of urban planning

approaches that restricted urban sprawl were

thus initially promoted on the argument that this

would preserve the natural environment and

rural character surrounding cities as a necessary

amenity for urban dwellers (Ingram, et al, 2009;

Haarhoff, et al, 2012). The higher density

development that is a consequence of

containing urban growth within an urban

boundary was subsequently justified by evidence

that a more compact urban form reduces fossil

fuel consumption and noxious emissions, and

leads to enhanced sustainability (Newman and

Kenworthy, 1989; 1999).

*Corresponding Author:

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

E-mail address: l.beattie@auckland.ac.nz

A R T I C L E I N F O:

Article history:

Received 30September 2017

Accepted 8October 2017

Available online 15October

2017

Keywords:

Urban Design;

Intensification,

Urban

Consolidation;Urban

Planning Tools and

Methods;

Liveability.

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution

- NonCommercial - NoDerivs 4.0.

"CC-BY-NC-ND"

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 13

Characterised by Quastel et al (2012) in their

study of Vancouver as ‘sustainability as density’,

the outcome is also argued to deliver benefits to

urban dwellers.

These arguments are key to underpinning urban

growth management plans in many cities across

Australia, New Zealand and North America

including the cities of Auckland, Melbourne,

Brisbane, Portland and Vancouver (cf. Auckland

Council, 2012; Department of Transport, Planning

and Local Infrastructure, 2002; Department of

Infrastructure and Planning, 2009; Metro Portland,

2012; Nikoofam, & Mobaraki(2016) ;Metro

Vancouver, 2010). They all establish urban

growth boundaries to contain urban sprawl, and

concentrate the greater part of future

development to designated areas within walking

distances of public transport, as transit-oriented

development (TOD’s). These transit centres

(activity centres in Australia, town/metropolitan

centres in Auckland, station communities in

Portland) as points of concentration also play a

role by providing local employment, services

and a range of retail and public amenities. The

concentration of future development in, and

around, transit centres requires the deployment

of multi-unit housing typologies to achieve the

higher densities, contrasting with lower density

detached housing that has, and indeed still

does, dominate most cities in these countries.

This intention to concentrate growth is made

explicit in the Victoria State government’s growth

plan for metropolitan Melbourne where it is seen

as ‘… the lynch-pins of a multi-centred structure

…where people can enjoy the benefits of living

closer to work with less congestion on the roads

and public transport networks’ (Department of

Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure,

2010, p. 5). There is now sufficient evidence to

demonstrate that these policies are being

successful in terms of increasing the number and

proportion of higher density, multi-unit housing

options in Australian and New Zealand cities

(Bunker et al, 2002; Buxton and Tieman, 2005;

Randolph, 2006; CHRANZ, 2011). Indeed, in

Australian cities this change is seen by Randolph

as ‘a revolution’ where ‘little over a generation

ago living in flats (apartments) was a minority

pastime’ (2006, p. 473).

Despite this apparent success in delivering higher

density options, critics argue that this is not

necessarily delivering fully on the aims of the

associated urban growth management plans for

a number of reasons. This include resistance to

living at, and with, higher density, market

reluctance to invest in the higher density housing

typologies, and argument that this form of urban

growth management negatively impacts

housing affordability (Haarhoff et al, 2012). A

newer area of critique suggests that the urban

planning system and current approaches

themselves may be faulty. For example, despite

urban growth management plans requiring

concentration of new development at activity

centres, there is evidence of slippage in meeting

this goal (Bunker et al, 2002; Buxon and Tieman,

2004; 2005; Woodcock et al, 2011; Haarhoff et al,

2012). Phan et al. (2009), in their study of the

spatial distribution of new residential construction

between 2001-2006 in the City of Clayton in the

Melbourne metropolitan region, found that the

goal of directing development to activity centres

has not yet been achieved. Much of the

residential development occurred as urban

sprawl beyond an 800-metre walking distance of

activity centres. For Melbourne as a whole,

Woodcock et al. argue that ‘seven years into the

implementation of Melbourne 2030 … not only

has there been very little intensification of activity

centres in established suburbs, but there have

been few urban design visions that might

engage the public imagination or that of the

development industry’ (2011, p. 95). Indeed,

they assert that higher density housing is being

approved ‘almost anywhere’ despite

concentration being mandated within walking

distances of ‘activity’ centres (Woodcock et al,

2011).

This suggests a weakness in the urban planning

system to fully deliver outcomes that are well

aligned with the urban growth management

plans. This point is also made by the Victoria

State government’s own 2007 audit of

Melbourne 2030,that found a lack of specific

urban planning tools to direct development into

the designated ‘activity centres’ (Woodcock et

al, 2011). On this issue, Buxton and Tieman (2005)

suggest that the ‘urban consolidation of

Melbourne 2030 will be undermined where there

is policy confusion involving some signals which

seek urban consolidation and other signals which

allow urban dispersal’ (Buxton and Tieman, 2005,

p.155).

These assessments are related to a perceived

failure on the part of the relevant urban planning

systems to comprehensively direct new

development towards areas within walking

distances of designated activity centres. In part,

shortcomings also result from a failure to provide

the infrastructure on which transit-oriented

development depends, especially on the urban

peripheries (Buxton & Tieman, 2005; Jain and

Courvisanon, 2008). To add to these issues, more

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 14

recent iterations of urban growth management

strategies have raised expectations further. To

counter arguments that higher density

development negatively impacts on the urban

experience, more recent iterations of urban

growth plans are justified on the grounds that

quality urban design inherently enhances urban

‘liveability’ (Haarhoff et al, 2012, and 2016). Such

goals are expressed in the UK Government’s

strategy for improving place quality in declaring

that ‘good quality place should not be seen as a

luxury but a vital element in our drive to make

Britain a safer, healthier, prosperous, more

inclusive and sustainable place’ (UK

Government, 2009, p. 2). The idea that

development focused on the primacy of street

life, a sense of urbanity, walkable

neighbourhoods, and connected communities

promotes urban ‘lliveability’ is well argued in

current practices (Calthorp, 1993; Ditmar and

Ohland, 2004; Condon, 2010;Arenibafo, 2016

Campoli, 2012).

The emphasis on ‘liveability’ also underpins calls

for the replication of ‘traditional’ town forms in

which these urban qualities are embedded,

particularly in the practice of New Urbanism

(Barnett, 2003). Critics of this approach have

questioned whether such traditional qualities

can be achieved solely through design actions

and manifestos (Dixon and Dupuis, 2003), and

doubts can be raised about whether

manifestations of New Urbanism in the form of

gated communities result in the urban public life

envisaged. Despite these doubts, The Auckland

Plan, is Auckland non-statutory spatial plan is

promoted as a strategy to ‘create the world’s

most liveable city’ (Auckland Council, 2012), and

to promote:

‘more compact neighbourhoods, supported by

quality networked infrastructure offers

opportunities to create healthy, stimulating and

beautiful urban environments…that enhance

social cohesion and interaction by attracting

people…to a mix of cafes, restaurants, shops,

services and well design public spaces’ (2012, p.

42).

This paper adds to a small but growing number

of studies reporting on efficacy of the urban

planning systems to deliver outcomes well

aligned to aims of the urban growth

management plans. This paper questions the

ability of urban planning methods and tools to

deliver the enhanced liveability and quality

urban design outcomes being promoted in

recent iterations of urban growth management

plans. Any failure to deliver the quality urban

design promised not only potentially brings

disappointment to city residents, but might also

bring into question the efficacy of this form of

urban growth management.The effective

implementation of urban growth strategies

requires alignment with the local statutory land

use plans, and the support of the local

authorities who are normally responsible for

implementing the higher order policy directives

(Beattie and Haarhoff, 2014; Waldner, 2008). This

requires the local statutory plans to have the

appropriate urban planning and design policy

responses, and the right mix of statutory tools

and methods to achieve the quality urban

design outcomes sought. The New Zealand

urban planning system, not unlike those found in

Australia, Canada and United States, uses a

rational conformance based approach that links

the local statutory plan (district plans) to

intended policy outcomes to the built outcomes

(Beattie, 2013; Laurian et al, 2010; Ericksen et al,

2003). Based on land use zoning designations,

these methods usually take the form of zone

codes setting out permitted uses supported by a

range of performance-based rules. These

include controls over building height set back

from boundaries, that development proposals

are required to meet. In this way, the district

plan provides a range of methods for district

plan users and developers to follow, which if

adhered to, should achieve the intended policy

outcomes in the in the physical development

(Beattie, 2013; Ericksen et al, 2003).

The paper aims to test the extent to which the

application of high-level policies for urban

intensification are effectively applied at the local

level to positively influence development

towards good urban design outcomes. This is

assessed through three case studies of medium

density housing development located in two

suburban town/metropolitan centres in

Auckland designated for higher density

development in the Auckland Plan and

Auckland’s statutory land use plan adopted in

2017; the Auckland Unitary Plan (Auckland

Council, 2012 and 2016). Auckland is New

Zealand’s largest city, containing a third of the

national population and is facing significant

growth pressure. Current predictions estimate

that the current population of 1.5 million will

increase a further 1 million by 2030 (New Zealand

Government, 2010; Auckland Council, 2016).

It should also be noted that in 2010, new unitary

governance arrangements were establishment

for the Auckland region. The new Auckland

Council replaced a regional authority and seven

previous local authorities that had responsibility

for a range of urban planning functions in their

districts. The case study locations of Albany and

Onehunga were previously under the jurisdiction

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 15

of the North Shore City Council and the

Auckland City Council (1999) respectively.

Planning consent for the case study

developments reported in this paper predate

the release of the Auckland Plan and the newly

adopted Unitary Plan. However, the previous

local authorities statutory district plans were all

aligned to the 2005 Auckland Regional Policy

Statement (ARPS) adopted by the now

disestablished Auckland Regional Council (ARC),

that followed the same policy direction towards

urban intensification as expressed in both the

Auckland and Unitary Plans. The ARC was legally

required to provide a regional and strategic

planning overview to local authorities, including

urban growth management issues that the local

authorities were required to give effect to

through their district plans. This enables the three

case studies to be assessed against an earlier

regional policy (the ARPS) and the two-relevant

district plans under the jurisdiction of the previous

local authorities that specifically sought to

translate the higher-order policies into good

urban design outcomes through the

development process.

2. Research Design and Methodology

A four-phase mixed research design was

employed using quantitative and qualitative

assessment techniques to examine the three

case study developments. The first phase sought

to determine the relevant policy outcomes for

medium density housing from each of the

relevant district plans to consider whether the

policy responses were aligned with the strategic

regional policy direction in the ARPS. This was

achieved by examining the district plan

objectives and policies, and comparing these

with the district plan’s stated expected results

(Environment Results Expected). This follows the

policy outcome mapping technique developed

by Beattie (2013), building on the Laurian et al

(2010) and Ericksen et al (2003) approach to

plan quality and evaluation. The second phase

examined the relevant district plan’s methods

and tools, including the zoning codes and

performance standards designed to achieve the

district plan’s urban design policy goals. The

third phase involved an independent assessment

of the developments using urban design best

practice criteria established by the Ministry for

the Environment (MFE) and published in their

guide: Medium-Density Housing: Case Study

Assessment Methodology (Ministry for the

Environment, 2012). Using the MFE guide

enabled a consistent and comparable

assessment to be undertaken of all three case

studies in their neighbourhood contexts, the

elements of which are set out in Table 1.

Table 1.Urban design assessment criteria

Source: Ministry for the Environment’s Medium-Density

Housing: Case Study Assessment Methodology (2012)

Key urban design areas Sub element

Site context and layout Neighbourhood context

Site context

Landscape coverage

Outdoor living spaces

Car parking and access

Service areas and utilities

Building form and

appearance

Horizontal modulation

Continuous building line

Building roofline

Façade articulation

Material use and quality

Street scene Street edge continuity and

enclosure

Building entrances

Façade opening

Street boundary treatment

Internal configuration Internal / external relationships

Visual privacy

Aspect / natural ventilation

The final phase involved interviewing 8 of the

previous local authority’s urban planning officers

who processed the resource consent

applications for the three case study

developments. The interviews followed the non-

standardised approach outlined by Davidson

and Tolich (2003, p240). This approach allowed

for semi-structured, open-ended questions where

we guided the interviewees into the relevant

areas related to the research to gain their

perspectives. The questions covered their role

the in resource consent process; their

understanding of the relevant district plan’s

policy intention for urban design outcomes;

whether the district plan provided clear methods

for achieving those policy goals; whether the

final outcomes represent a good urban design

solution for the site; whether the development

integrates into the local context, and whether

there were any other factors in the district plan

process which may have contributed to the

actual development outcome. The interviews

were carried out at a place of the interviewees

choosing, lasting between 45 to 60 minutes,

audio recorded under (protocols approved by

the University of Auckland Human Ethics

Committee), and transcribed by a third party.

The interview transcriptions were analysed using

narrative analysis to discover the key emerging

themes (Wiles et al 2005).

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 16

3. Case study locations and context

Medium density housing case study

developments were selected that were within

suburban areas designated for density

intensification in the Auckland Plan (called

‘areas of change’) and within the previous

relevant district plans and ARPS (Auckland

Council, 2012 and 2016). Two case studies are

located in the Albany town centre 17 kilometres

north of the Auckland’s CBD, and one in the

Onehunga town centre 12 kilometres south of

the CBD (see figure 1).

Figure 1.Auckland urban region showing the CBD (blue), and

in red, Albany to the North and Onehunga to the south.

Now designated as a metropolitan centre,

Albany has attracted considerable public

infrastructure investment from both the previous

North Shore City Council and the New Zealand

government as a regional centre on Auckland’s

North Shore (Haarhoff et al, 2012). The area is

dominated by a large shopping centre

surrounded by other ‘big-box’ retailers and car

parking, where most land currently remains

vacant. Albany is served by a rapid bus service

to central Auckland via a local bus station,

largely operating as a park-and-ride facility. The

two medium density case studies developments

(The Ridge and Spencer Road) are within 800

metres of the bus station and shopping centre.

Figure 2 show the location of the two-case study

development in the Albany context, and 800

metre walking distance circles.

Figure 2.Albany case study development locations.

The area to the east of the case studies is

dominated by detached housing, although

zoning permits multi-unit housing. Both case

study developments were zoned Area D: Varied

Residential under the North Shore City district

plan, which provides for a range of housing

typologies subject to an urban planning and

design assessment, that includes a range of

performance standards such as density, building

height and car parking. Built between 2005 and

2007, the developments together have 169 units

at a net density of 67 units per hectare. The

single level, two-bedroom units each with a floor

area of 49.5 m2 are contained in a series of

identical three storeys blocks (figure 3).

Figure 3. ‘The Ridge’ development (Left) and the ‘Spencer’ (Right) (Source: Google Earth, 2016)

Onehunga is one of Auckland’s oldest and most

established suburban town centres designated

for intensified development with the adoption of

the first regional planning document in 1974

(Auckland Regional Council, 1999). The

Auckland Plan is consistent with the earlier district

plans and identifies Onehunga as an ‘area of

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 17

change’ able accommodate an additional

3,400 residential units and 5,500 new jobs by 2040

(Auckland Council, 2012). The town centre has a

terminal railway station that links to Auckland’s

CBD, and is earmarked for extension to Auckland

airport. The town centre offers a wide range of

retail outlets, restaurants and public services and

facilities such as parks and a library, and unlike

Albany, Onehunga is pedestrian oriented. The

case study development (Atrium on Main) is

located to the north of the main shopping street,

within easy walking distance of the railway

station and bus connections (figure 4).

Figure 4. Auckland urban region showing the CBD (blue), and

in red, Albany to the North and Onehunga to the south.

The case study developments comprise 112

residential units arranged in a perimeter block

with a net density of 64 units per hectare, with

units ranging in size from one to three bedrooms.

There are also a few retail units at ground floor

level facing the high street. The site is zoned

Business 2 in the district plan and provides for a

range of land use activities, including residential

usage, subject to compliance with performance

standards such as building height and car

parking controls. An aerial view of the

development is shown in figure 5.

Figure 5. Aerial view of the Onehunga case study

development. 4. Results: Albany Case Studies

It was difficult to define with any degree of

certainty a clear policy picture from the North

Shore district plan over its intended urban design

policy outcomes for medium density housing.

The policy direction given in the actual wording

of the objectives and policies were judged to be

unclear, poorly written and at times

contradictory in different parts of the district

plan. For example, conflicts exist between the

transportation, residential and urban design

sections of the district plan. Nonetheless, it

appears at the strategic level that the North

Shore district plan sought to facilitate the

development of high-quality urban design. The

relevant objective was to:

‘effectively manage growth and change by

achieving the maintenance and enhancement

of a high quality built environment and enabling

a wide choice of lifestyles, a range of types and

affordability of housing and choice of

employment opportunities by enabling

development opportunities in and around sub-

regional centres which demonstrates a high

standard of design’ (North Shore City Council,

2003, p 8).

This was supported by the Varied Residential

zoning code’s residential amenity objective

seeking ‘to ensure a high level of residential

amenity by ensuring that layout and design

achieves a high standard of security, visual and

aural privacy and usable public and private

open space’ (North Shore City Council, 2003, p.

11). While it was difficult to gain a clear picture

of the intended policy outcomes in the district

plan for medium density housing, using these key

objectives, it followed that the case-study

developments should have been built to a high-

quality design standard, especially in areas

within 800 metres of the metropolitan centre.

This interpretation was confirmed by the urban

planning officers interviewed.

The Resource Management Act (RMA), New

Zealand’s urban planning legislation, is based on

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 18

a rational conformance approach where the

district plan provides for a range of statutory

methods and tools to achieve quality

development outcomes through the

development process. Thus, the relevant district

plan included site density control (one residential

unit per 150m2 of site area), parking

requirements (two car parking spaces per unit

over 50m2, or one if less), a maximum building

height, and requirements for shared outdoor

recreational areas within the development

(North Shore City Council, 2003, pp. 30-33). While

this provides potential developers with a guide to

determine the residential unit yield, there was no

control over residential type mix or unit size. The

development was subject to resource consent

where the application was assessed against

these requirements and meeting quality urban

design outcomes (North Shore City Council,

2003, pp. 16-83).

The independent assessment undertaken by the

authors of these developments using the urban

design criteria from table 1, indicated poor

responses to all four areas: context and layout,

form and appearance, street scene and internal

configuration. Negative elements include the

smallness of the two bedroom units (49.5 m2),

poorly designed private open spaces, the

domination of the internal courtyard by hard-

paved parking and poorly located and

designed shared spaces (figure 6). While the

developments have some good points, including

the solid construction and good street edge

definition, these factors did not compensate for

the other deficiencies. Perhaps the greatest

deficiency in terms of meeting intended urban

planning and design policy outcomes, was the

poor pedestrian connection to the Albany town

centre, and in particular, the rapid bus station,

and thus not meeting policy requirements for

quality developments within walking distances of

transit centres.

Figure 6.Internal view of the Albany case study development.

The photograph shows the extent of surface car parking and

poorly positioned waste disposal facilities (source: authors).

From interviews with relevant council urban

planning officers, it became apparent that the

small size of the residential units was a direct

result of the district plan requirement for

residential unit over 50 m2 to be provided with at

least two car parking spaces. This, coupled with

the Council’s traffic engineering advice seeking

at least 0.5 visitor car parking spaces per

residential unit, became, in the interviewees’

opinions, one of the major determining design

factors. Also, all respondents felt that the district

plan had weak intended policy outcomes and

methods that diluted their ability to achieve

good built form outcomes through the

consenting process.

Another strong theme that emerged from the

interviews was the district plan’s density control

method and its influence on the design process.

All were of the opinion that the applicant simply

divided the gross site area by 150 m2 to produce

the housing yield for the sites without considering

other factors that may have led to a better

design resolution. In their views, this approach is

not uncommon, especially where district plans

provide density standards for residential

development. Consequently, it appears that car

parking and the site density controls were the

two major determining design factors for the

developments, which contradicted the intended

urban design policy outcomes described in the

district plan. This is somewhat concerning given

policies promoting more compact development

and reduced car dependency, and the newer

imperatives to deliver ‘liveability’ and quality

urban design.

5. Results: Onehunga Case Study

Using the policy intended outcome technique, it

was almost impossible to get a clear picture of

the relevant district plan’s intended policy

outcomes for medium-density housing for the

Onehunga case study. The Business 2 Zone on

which this development occurs provided

objectives and policies for business use and

associated activities, but no policy direction for

residential activity or any other non-business

activity. However, there were regulatory rules

that controlled residential development within

the zone, including a requirement for approval

of a resource consent (planning permission). It is

unclear how this approach was achieved

through the plan making process, as it is contrary

to the RMA’s rational conformance based urban

planning approach, where the plan methods

(rules) are designed to give effect to the district

plan’s policy intention. This situation left the

district plan without any policy guidance to

direct district plan users or the council staff

administrating the district plan on how to address

residential uses within the business zone.

While there were no policy intentions given, the

district plan did provide a range of statutory rules

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 19

addressing residential development, including

vehicle access and car parking controls (two per

residential unit), a maximum building height of 12

metres and visual privacy controls to prevent

residential unit outlook impacting adversely on

neighbours (Auckland City Council 1999, p. 8).

However, there was no residential density control

limiting the number of residential units that could

be developed on the site, nor restrictions on the

residential mix or unit size.

The assessment of this development using the

urban design criteria from table 1, was good on

three of the criteria, namely, context and layout,

form and appearance, and street scene.

Internal configuration was judged to be poor.

This assessment reflected on the following key

characteristics: favourable location within the

town centre; safe and easy access to public

transport and a wide range of local and

commercial services and facilities; and the

perimeter block form is well conceived by

creating a well-defined and potentially active

street edge. Deficiencies related to the

configuration arise from the insertion of

additional units within the inner courtyard area

that restrict internal outlook and result in narrow

spaces between blocks, and the presence of

driveways to lockup garages at the upper

courtyard level that precludes better use.

Given this good assessed outcome, it was

surprising to discover from the interviews that the

relevant district plan did not express any urban

design outcomes for medium intensity housing

within the Business 2 Zone. The council urban

planning officers were effectively left make their

own professional judgements. Moreover, the

better outcomes when compared to Albany,

were achieved in spite of the fact that the

relevant district plan provided little or no policy

guidance. Consequently, the district had little

impact on the actual design. This contrasts with

Albany where more stringent rules and policy

guides in fact led to a poorer outcome.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

Under the current neo-liberal economic context

prevalent in New Zealand and elsewhere, quality

urban place and space sought through

development actions depends to a large extent

on market investment with commercial goals

(Goodman and Moloney, 2011). While

acknowledging the potential contradiction

between market-led goals in land development

and the provision of quality urban space as a

social benefit, Adams and Tiesdell (2013, p. 6)

suggest that there is a potential alternative in

what they call ‘plan-shaped’ markets. This

defines a crucial role for urban planners and

designers (and the urban planning process) as

key mediators between market-driven

imperatives and the delivery of public benefits

through land development. Given the concern

expressed about the weaknesses in the urban

planning system from other research cited, and

the outcomes to the research reported in this

paper, delivering on the aspiration for good

urban design will in part depend on effective

urban planning tools and methods raising

questions about the overall effectiveness of

these approaches used.

In the context of cities that have rational

conformance-based planning approaches, such

as New Zealand, Australia and parts of North

America, implementation of the regional

strategies requires strong alignment with the

local statutory land use plans and tools. These

need to have appropriate policy responses, with

the right mix of tools and methods to achieve

the quality urban design outcomes sought. This

paper has evaluated three medium density case

study developments at two suburban locations in

Auckland to assess this efficacy of the urban

planning system to deliver quality urban design

outcomes through the development process.

The independent assessment of the urban design

qualities of the case study developments

produced different, if not contradictory, results.

In the Albany case studies, the development was

judged to be poor on all of the urban design

criteria used: context, building form and

appearance, street scene and internal

configuration. Yet the relevant district plan had

clear policy tools and methods intended to

direct good urban design outcomes, also well

aligned with the regional strategy.

In the Onehunga case study, the development

was assessed to be good in relation to three

urban design criteria: context, building form and

street scene, with shortcomings associated with

the internal configurations. Notwithstanding the

shortcomings, this development was assessed to

be far better than the Albany developments.

Yet in Onehunga, there is an absence of clear

urban planning tools and methods specifically

for residential development in what is a business

zone: quality development notwithstanding of

an absence of effective urban planning

directives? Here the outcomes appear to have

been largely the result of good discretionary

decisions made by the responsible urban

planning officers through the consenting

process, in conjunction with good design on the

part of the design professionals. Consequently, it

is concluded that the relevant district plans and

their tools and methods, have had limited

impact on influencing and directing the

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 20

development outcome of the three case studies,

despite the implicit intentions that this should be

so.

This conclusion raises a number of observations

and questions. While limited, it parallels

questions being asked about the efficacy of

urban planning systems and processes in

Australian cities cited in this paper, concerning

the perceived misalignment between actual

development and urban planning directives to

concentrate growth and development at transit

centres (Woodcock et al, 2011). The results from

this research show that for the three case studies,

the relevant urban planning tools and methods

currently deployed in Auckland appeared to

have had little or no impact on the delivery of

good urban design outcomes that the higher

order regional policies seek. Accepting that the

scope of this study is limited, nevertheless, along

with other studies cited on this question, it does

point to a potential problem for achieving the

strategic policy goals of enhanced liveability.

For this reason, there is concern about the

current newly adopted unitary plan for

Auckland. The unitary plan, having both

regional and local urban planning functions,

through its zoning proposal and associated rules

and guides is intended to give effect to policies

for quality intensified development set out as

goals in the Auckland Plan (Auckland Council,

2013). The question asked is whether this new

plan has sufficiently addressed perceived

shortcomings in the existing district plans that it

will replace? For example, will it address

problems identified by urban planners

interviewed that the existing district plans are

considered to be too broad, loosely written,

unquantifiable with a disconnection between

the weak policy direction and the zoning code

and rules.

The more positive outcome in the Onehunga

development case study also raises questions

about the need for any urban planning

directives at all, given the absence of any

specific urban planning tools and methods for

residential development in this example? The

good outcome seems to have been derived

from both good design and good judgements

made by the council urban planning officers

through the consenting process. There is little

doubt that good quality development relies to a

large extent on good quality design and

designers – the urban planners, urban designers,

architects and other built environment

professionals involved, especially where serving

market-driven development imperatives.

However, this works best on larger sites where

there is an opportunity to plan and design more

comprehensively (CABE, 2008; Adams & Tiesdell,

2013). To some extent, the kind of land

development envisaged in the intensification of

development around transit centres is

predicated on the existence of large blocks of

land or ‘brownfield’ sites opportunities. A good

exemplar is a master-planned development on

the urban periphery of Melbourne, at University

Hill, in the City of Whittlesea. Here a large vacant

site was master-planned to accommodate a mix

of medium density housing, retail, commercial

and light industrial activities, set in a well-

designed public realm. The result has won

awards for the excellent urban design, and the

success attributed to an enlightened developer

willing to take risks on the urban periphery, a

cooperative local authority willing to bend

planning rules to achieve strategic aims and

quality outcomes, and skilled urban planners,

urban designers and architects (Beattie and

Haarhoff, 2014). There are many other examples

of successful masterplanned developments

where the effective stakeholders cooperation

and focuss on shared goals achieves successful

urban design outcomes.

However, land suitable for large-scale

development of this kind is limited in most cities,

including Auckland where areas in the vicinity of

many suburban transit centres are located.

Delivering on the goals for intensified

development and quality urban design across

most metropolitan regions relies on smaller

scaled, site-by-site development opportunities

spread across metropolitan regions. Moreover,

smaller scale, incremental developments in

these contexts do not necessarily involve the

range of highly skilled built environment

professional’s more likely deployed in master

planned developments. Nevertheless, it is in

such areas and contexts that a greater number

of future developments can be expected, and

where the relevant urban planning methods and

tools need to be far more effective to ensure

quality urban design outcomes.

Meeting the goals for good urban design

outcomes, urban ‘liveability’ and the necessary

concentration of higher density development

are largely dependent on the development

process through the market, mediated by the

urban planning system. In the case studies

reported, the urban design outcome is shown to

be both good and poor, and that the planning

methods and tools themselves had little impact

on this outcome. In the context of smaller scale,

incremental development at higher density

applied across the larger part of metropolitan

regions, this shortcoming is a serious concern.

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 21

This study raises questions about the effective

influence that statutory plans have had on

achieving the desired quality urban design

outcomes for the case studies at two suburban

town centres in Auckland. This in turn raises more

serious questions for implementation of the

Auckland Council’s new unitary plan, which also

seeks to consolidate urban growth at such

centres spread across the metropolitan region.

Moreover, seen in the context of research in

other cities where inefficiencies have been

shown as obstacles to achieving the goals of

urban intensification, there is sufficient reason to

have more general concern on this issue. This

paper is limited in scope to one city and three

case studies. Nevertheless, it is argued that

evaluating the effectiveness of the urban

planning system to successfully deliver quality

urban design outcomes that result in enhanced

urban liveability and the associated social

benefits, largely through market-driven land

development processes, is a research area

deserving more attention.

The opinions expressed and conclusions reached

in this paper however are entirely those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect those of

the funders nor persons interviewed.

Acknowledgments

This research did not receive any specific grant

from funding agencies in the public,

commercial, or non-for-profit sectors

References

Adams, D. and Tiesdell, S. (2013) Shaping Places:

Urban Planning, Design and Development.

London: Routledge. Availible at:

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/42615/

Auckland City Council (1999) Auckland City

Council District Plan: Isthmus Plan section.

Auckland: Auckland City Council. Availibe at:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-

projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-

strategies/district-and-regional-plans/district-

plans/isthmus-district-plan/Pages/default.aspx

Auckland Council. (2012) The Auckland Spatial

Plan.

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/plans

policiesprojects/plansstrategies/theaucklandpl

an/Pages/theaucklandplan.aspx , accessed

14 August 2014.

Auckland Council. (2016) The Unitary Plan.,

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/plans

policiesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Pa

ges/unitaryplanoperative.aspx , accessed 14

August 2017.

Auckland Council (2013) Special Housing Areas:

The Criteria.

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuil

dingproperty/housingsupply/Documents/shacri

teria.pdf , accessed 21 August 2014.

Auckland Regional Council (1999), Auckland

Regional Growth Forum: a vision for managing

growth in the Auckland Region. Auckland:

Auckland Regional Council. Available at:

http://www.safekids.nz/Information-

research/Information-Search-

Results/Type/View/ID/7759

Auckland Regional Council. (2008) Proposed Plan

Change 6 to the Auckland Regional Policy

Statement. Auckland: Auckland Regional

Council.

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-

projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-

strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-

modifications/proposed-plan-

changes/docspc7/section-32-evaluation.pdf

Auckland Unitary Plan, Independent Hearings

Panel. (2014), About us.

http://www.aupihp.govt.nz , accessed 5 June

2014.

Arenibafo, F. (2016). The Transformation of

Aesthetics in Architecture from Traditional to

Modern Architecture: A case study of the

Yoruba (southwestern) region of Nigeria.

Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 1(1), 35-

44. https://doi.org/10.25034/1761.1(1)35-44

Barnett, J. (2003) Redesigning cities: principles,

practices and implementation. Chicago:

Planners Press.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235

357552_Redesigning_Cities_Principles_Practice_

Implementation

Beattie, L. and Haarhoff (2014), E. Delivering

quality urban consolidation on the urban

fringe: A case study of University Hill,

Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Urban

Regeneration and Renewal 7(4): 329-342.

Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277

612232_Delivering_quality_urban_consolidation

_on_the_urban_fringe_A_case_study_of_Univer

sity_Hill_Melbourne_Australia

Beattie, L. (2013) Evaluating District Plan in

Auckland, New Zealand: Do they deliver their

intended outcomes. PhD thesis, University of

Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Available

at:

http://www.creative.auckland.ac.nz/people/l-

beattie

Beattie, L. (2011) The Auckland Spatial Plan: the

challenge of implementation. Paper presented

at the 4th World Planning School Congress;

Perth, Australia.

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/

2292/16789

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 22

Beattie, L. and Haarhoff, E. (2011) Governance:

how to achieve urban growth management in

practice: a practitioner perspective. Paper

presented at the International New Urbanism

and Smart Growth Conference; Perth,

Australia.

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/

2292/16669

Bunker, R., Gleeson, B., Holloway, D. and

Randolph, B. (2002) The local Impacts of Urban

Consolidation in Sydney. Urban Policy and

Research, 20(2): 143-167.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140220144461

Buxton, M. and Tieman, G. (2005) Patterns of

Urban Consolidation in Melbourne: Planning

Policy and the Growth of Medium Density

Housing. Urban Policy and Research, 23:2: 137-

157.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08111470500135086

CABE (2008), Creating successful masterplans,

London: Commission for Architecture and the

Built Environment.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/201

10118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/crea

ting-successful-masterplans.pdf , accessed 14

August 2014.

Campoli (2012), J. Made for Walking: Density and

Neighborhood Form. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&e

src=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&v

ed=2ahUKEwjygZ3y2qvfAhXi-

ioKHfCGBo4QFjAAegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2

F%2Fwww.coliman.org%2Fapp%2Fdownload%2

F755906227%2FwalkingCities.pdf&usg=AOvVa

w26jinJLdjASlGwbN_ixwsi

CHRANZ .(2011). Improving the Design, Quality

and Affordability of Residential Intensification in

New Zealand. Auckland: Centre for Housing

Research Aotearoa New Zealand.

https://www.smartgrowthbop.org.nz/media/14

11/g-improving-the-design-quality-affordability-

residential-intensification.pdf

Department of Infrastructure and Planning (2009)

South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-

2031.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/s

eq/regional-plan-2009/seq-regional-plan-

2009.pdf , accessed 14 August 2014.

Department of Planning and Community

Development (2010) Activity Centres Toolkit:

Making it Happen.

http://www.google.co.nz/#q=victoria+state+a

ctivity+centre+toolk accessed 14 August 2-14.

Department of Transport, Planning and Local

Infrastructure (2002) Melbourne 2030: Planning

for Sustainable Growth.

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/plansa

ndpolicies/planningformelbourne/planninghist

ory/melbourne2030 , accessed 14 August 2014.

Dixon, J. and Dupuis, A. (2003) Urban

Intensification in Auckland, New Zealand: a

challenge for new urbanism. Housing Studies

18(3): 353-369.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030304239

Ericksen, N., Berke, P., Crawford, J. and Dixon, J.

(2003) Planning for Sustainability: New Zealand

under the RMA. Waikato: International Global

Change Institute.

https://www.amazon.com/Planning-

Sustainability-New-Zealand-

Under/dp/0473098148

Haarhoff, E., Beattie, L., Dixon, J., Dupuis, A.,

Lysnar, P. and Murphy, L. (2012) Future

Intensive: Insights for Auckland’s Housing.

Auckland: The University of

Auckland/Transforming Cities.

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/

2292/22332

Haarhoff, E., Beattie, L., & Dupuis, A. (2016). “Does

higher density housing enhance liveability?

Case studies of housing intensification in

Auckland”. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1).

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1243289

Haarhoff, E. and Beattie, L. (2011). Questions

about smart growth: a critical appraisal of

urban growth strategies in three North

American cities. Paper presented at the

International New Urbanism and Smart Growth

Conference; Perth, Australia.

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/

2292/16788

28Ingram, G., Carbonnell, A., Hong, Y-H and

Flint, A. (2009) Smart Growth Policies: an

Evlauation of Programs and Outcomes.

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land

Policy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261

961928_Smart_Growth_Policies_An_Evaluation_

of_Programs_and_Outcomes_by_Gregory_K_In

gram_Armando_Carbonell_Yu-

Hung_Hong_Anthony_Flint

Jain, A. and Courvisanon, J. (2008). Urban Growth

on the periphery: ad hoc policy visions and

research neglect. Paper presented at the 32nd

ANZRSAI Conference; Adelaide, Australia.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstr

act_id=2138610

Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Mason, G., Erickson, N.,

Kouwenhoven, P., Day, M. and Beattie, L,

(2010) Evaluating the Outcomes of Plans.

Environment and Planning B 37(4): 740-757.

https://www.waikato.ac.nz/php/research.php

?mode=show&author=417

Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P.,

Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., Dixon, J. and

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 12-23 / 2018

Dr. Lee Beattie and Dr. Errol Haarhoff 23

Chapman, S. (2004) What Drives Plan

Implementation? Plans, Planning Agencies and

Developers. Journal of Environmental Planning

and Management 47(4): 555-577.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000243230

Lunt, N. and Davidson, C. (2003). Introduction:

evaluate matters. In Lunt, N., Davidson, C. and

Mc Kegg, K (eds) Evaluating Policy and

Practice: A New Zealand Reader. Auckland:

Pearson Education.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download

?doi=10.1.1.360.8700&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Metro Portland .(1994). The Nature of 2040: The

region’s 50-year plan for managing growth,

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/file

s/natureof2040.pdf , accessed 14 August 2014.

Metro Vancouver. (2010). Metro Vancouver 2040:

Shaping Our Future,

http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/de

velopment/strategy/RGSDocs/RGSAdoptedby

GVRDBoardJuly292011.pdf , accessed 14

August 2014.

McDougall, A. and Maharaj, V. (2012). Closing the

Gaps on the urban fringe of Australia capital

cities: an investment worth making. Australian

Planner 48(3): 131-140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2011.581244

Ministry for the Environment. (2012) Medium

density housing: case study assessment

methodology. Wellington: New Zealand

Government.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/towns-

and-cities/medium-density-housing-case-study-

assessment-methodology-0

Nikoofam, M., & Mobaraki, A. (2016). In Pursuit of

Sustainable Strategic Long-term Planning

Throughout Meta-postmodernism as New

Perspective of Stylistic Design. Contemporary

Urban Affairs (JCUA), 1(1), 45-55.

https://doi.org/10.25034/1761.1(1)45-55

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J, (1989) Cities and

Automobile Dependence. Aldershot: Gower.

https://www.amazon.com/Cities-Automobile-

Dependence-Peter-Newman/dp/1857421035

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999).

Sustainability and Cities. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

https://islandpress.org/books/sustainability-

and-cities

New Zealand Government, (2010). Spatial

Planning Options for the Auckland Council,

Cabinet paper from the Minister for the

Economic Development and Environment,

Wellington, New Zealand.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/cabinet-papers-

and-related-material-search/cabinet-

papers/auckland-governance-reform/spatial

North Shore City Council (2003) North Shore City

District Plan. Auckland: North Shore City

Council.

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-

projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-

strategies/district-and-regional-plans/district-

plans/north-shore-district-plan/Pages/north-

shore-district-plan-text.aspx

Phan, T., Peterson, J., and Chandra, S. (2009).

Residential Intensification in a suburban fringe

local government area, Casey, Melbourne

Metropolitan area, Australia. Australasian

Journal of Regional Studies 15(1): 81-100.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255

650342_Residential_intensification_on_a_suburb

an_fringe_local_government_area_in_the_Mel

bourne_Metropolitan_Area_Australia

Quastel, N., Moos, M. and Lynch, N. (2012).

Sustainabilty-as-Density and the Return of the

Social: The Case of Vancouver, British

Columbia. Urban Geography 33(7): 1055-1084.

https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.7.1055

Randolph, B. (2006) Delivering the compact city in

Australia: current treads and future

implications. Urban Policy and Research 24(4):

473-490.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140601035259

UK Government .(2009). World Class Places: The

Government’s Strategy for Improving Quality of

Place, London: Department for Communities

and Local Government. http://www.veilig-

ontwerp-beheer.nl/publicaties/world-class-

places-the-government2019s-strategy-for-

improving-quality-of-place/view

Waldner, L. (2008) Regional plans, local fates?

How spatially restrictive regional policies

influence county policy and regulations.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 35(4): 679 – 700.

https://doi.org/10.1068/b33061

Wiles, J.L, Rosenberg, M.W. and Kearns, R.A.

(2005), Narrative analysis as a strategy for

understanding interview talk in geograohic

research, Area, 37 (1), 89-99.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-

4762.2005.00608.x

Woodcock, I., Dovey, K., Wollan, S., and

Robertson, I. (2011) Speculation and

Resistance: Constraints on Compact City Policy

Implications in Melbourne. Urban Policy and

Research 29(4): 343-362.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2011.581335